What's Italian for 'kipper? Anti-migrant stunt goes awry.
Discussion
Guam said:
Breadvan72 said:
Getragdogleg said:
Breadvan72 said:
AJS- said:
10PS
If he's just after the money, why would he care about directing policy? Heck, join the Lib Dems if you have to. They all get the same expenses, right?
Farage has zero chance of wielding power and must be shrewd enough to know that. Being UKIP (because it is in essence a one man band) gives him money and public profile in return for almost no work. Think of the pub bore who now gets to be a well paid professional pub bore. Sweet deal!If he's just after the money, why would he care about directing policy? Heck, join the Lib Dems if you have to. They all get the same expenses, right?
s2art said:
Breadvan72 said:
My work revolves to a large extent around legislation and regulations. Most of it has nothing to do with the EU, and most of it has nothing to do with Parliament. It's mostly prepared by departmental (UK) civil servants, and often badly (but that's another debate).
We are very badly misgoverned (party in power regardless), but the misgovernment happens mainly in Whitehall and Downing Street, not in Brussels, Luxembourg, or Strasbourg.
'Mats Persson, director of the think-tank Open Europe, said: “This study reveals that putting a number on the percentage of UK laws coming from the EU is almost impossible. But, in any case, it is far more important to measure the actual impact that EU laws have on the economy and individuals on a day-to-day basis. We are very badly misgoverned (party in power regardless), but the misgovernment happens mainly in Whitehall and Downing Street, not in Brussels, Luxembourg, or Strasbourg.
“Our research, based on the Government’s own figures, shows that in 2009, 59 percent of the regulatory costs facing individuals, businesses and the public sector in the UK stemmed from EU legislation. This is a far more useful measure than merely counting individual laws without any sense of their relative importance – and it shows that the EU now has a massive impact on the UK.”
That was a few years ago. Since then the EU has taken over regulation of banks and financial services. So it will be higher now.
So I call BS BV, even the House of Commons believes that the EU has over 50% control of our law.
One of the worst things about the EU is the undue regulatory costs that many of its measures impose, but all modern Governments love regulation, and I doubt that the burden would be reduced very much if the UK leaves the EU. A bit, maybe, and that may be a reason for leaving, but it is foolish to imagine that if all the EU rules vanish overnight they will not be replaced, for the most part, with similar stiff home grown. As noted above, it could even be worse: we could end up like Norway - complying with the rules, paying a big subscription, and not having any real access even to the faulty and flawed deliberative processes of the law making bodies.
Guam said:
HAHAHAHAH
Seriously, The Kipper haters really should not have opened this can of worms.
I am sure many on PH will appreciate this lot who are tory Bedfellows in the ecr
Primarily a Protestant party, the CU bases its policies on the Bible, and takes the theological principles of charity and stewardship as bases for its support for public expenditure and environmentalism. The party seeks for government to uphold Christian morality, but supports freedom of religion under the doctrine of sphere sovereignty. The party is moderately Eurosceptic; it sits with the ECR in the European Parliament. It is a member.
Apparently BV and the other Kipper haters must belong to the "Black Stocking brigade"
and there was me thinking they had "liberal outlooks" !
Black stockings? Nope, Papist (very, very lapsed). Crap religion, but cool threads and good songs. CU? Pretty feeble stuff, Guam. The CU hang out with the Tories. Let them. I ain't a Tory. Seriously, The Kipper haters really should not have opened this can of worms.
I am sure many on PH will appreciate this lot who are tory Bedfellows in the ecr
Primarily a Protestant party, the CU bases its policies on the Bible, and takes the theological principles of charity and stewardship as bases for its support for public expenditure and environmentalism. The party seeks for government to uphold Christian morality, but supports freedom of religion under the doctrine of sphere sovereignty. The party is moderately Eurosceptic; it sits with the ECR in the European Parliament. It is a member.
Apparently BV and the other Kipper haters must belong to the "Black Stocking brigade"
and there was me thinking they had "liberal outlooks" !
don4l said:
Breadvan72 said:
A lot of the Eurosceptics complain of the EU doing things that they didn't think that it would do when they voted back in the 1970s, but they must have failed to read the documents at the time - all of the free movement stuff was on the cards from the word go.
We were asked about free movement between economically similar countries. That wasn't a problem.The problem arises when you give free access to very poor countries. We were not told that Iror Curtain countries were going to be joining.
AshVX220 said:
...
Sorry BV, I'm sure you have an amazing lifestyle compared to me etc, etc. It's just not for me. I'm far too common.
I bet I could out common you. My dad is personally to blame for the Lucas alternators on all your cars being so rubbish. I would like to think that he did it as a radical gesture of fSorry BV, I'm sure you have an amazing lifestyle compared to me etc, etc. It's just not for me. I'm far too common.
k you, you bourgeois gits with your cars and stuff, but to be frank I think he did it because he'd been out on the lash the night before.PS: motor collection slashed by tax bill, hey ho.
What? You mean people politically active in the old Soviet Block nations were (gasp!) Communists? Holmes, you astound me.
An analogy: I am not a fan of Cameron, but I don't think that he's a right winger. When he was at Brasenose, he was an awful right winger, snob, and Bullingdon Hooray. Then he grew up. He changed his opinions and behaviour, and became a moderately statesmanlike Prime Minister somewhere centre right ish. Sometimes, people change. The Lega Nord is still the Lega Nord.
An analogy: I am not a fan of Cameron, but I don't think that he's a right winger. When he was at Brasenose, he was an awful right winger, snob, and Bullingdon Hooray. Then he grew up. He changed his opinions and behaviour, and became a moderately statesmanlike Prime Minister somewhere centre right ish. Sometimes, people change. The Lega Nord is still the Lega Nord.
s2art said:
Hmmm. Do I believe you or the House of Commons library? Or for that matter a pro-EU think tank (open Europe). I guess I will go with the HoC library on this. Its a puzzle why you dont observe more EU initiated law, are you sure that you actually know how the UK law which you deal with originated? Do you know how many statuary instruments are created by civil servants implementing EU directives?
A preliminary observation: The House of Commons Library is just a big library with stuff in it. Some of it is useful, some not. A document gains no magic kudos just because of which shelf it is on. More importantly, look at what the document actually says, not what you want it to say. Measuring regulatory impact is important, and the impact is too great. That does not mean that control of law making now lies with Brussels for over half the time that the Government machine is plugged in.
I look at legislation for a living. Do you? If domestic legislation is implementing EU legislation, I find that out, as it affects how you apply the legislation. If you had any idea of how much legislation issues from the machine each year, you would not ask if anyone checks its origins, rule by rule, because no one can. No one sees all the stuff, and those who have to see some of it see it piecemeal. What I can tell you is that I see the rules in the wild, as it were, and about one in seven or so that I have to deal with has EU derivation. This is within a broad civil practice covering business law in general, public law and regulatory actvity, employment law and a bit of meeja stuff.
I am not telling you how much EU law is out there for political reasons - it's just the boring reality. Perhaps I am perversely trying to help UKIP along by saying that it should target the real EU problems. Undue legal control from Brussels is not top of the pile of problems, but Farage bangs on about it (I think mendaciously), as it plays with voters who don't fact check.
Edited by anonymous-user on Wednesday 9th April 16:46
otolith said:
Breadvan72 said:
What? You mean people politically active in the old Soviet Block nations were (gasp!) Communists? Holmes, you astound me.
An analogy: I am not a fan of Cameron, but I don't think that he's a right winger. When he was at Brasenose, he was an awful right winger, snob, and Bullingdon Hooray. Then he grew up. He changed his opinions and behaviour, and became a moderately statesmanlike Prime Minister somewhere centre right ish. Sometimes, people change. The Lega Nord is still the Lega Nord.
Is the virtue you see there movement towards the centre or movement towards the left or movement towards electability? Would you say that Blair was more admirable than Benn for the same reason? He was certainly more effective, I suppose.An analogy: I am not a fan of Cameron, but I don't think that he's a right winger. When he was at Brasenose, he was an awful right winger, snob, and Bullingdon Hooray. Then he grew up. He changed his opinions and behaviour, and became a moderately statesmanlike Prime Minister somewhere centre right ish. Sometimes, people change. The Lega Nord is still the Lega Nord.
Another analogy: once a terrorist, always a terrorists? Michael Collins, Nelson Mandela, Menachem Begin, even Martin McGuinness may suggest otherwise.
otolith said:
That's true, though it does lead to the situation where we have a choice of parties with broadly similar policies and different coloured ties.
Terrorism is a means, not an end. It's what you do when you can't get what you want out of the political system, perhaps because the system is stacked against you, perhaps because not enough people agree with you.
Despite signs of polarisation and extremism of left and right across Europe, it may well be that most of us are still somewhere close to the centre, moving slightly to left and right occasionally as stuff happens. Despite the best efforts of the Mail et al to make people nasty, frightened, and full of hate, most people aren't. If this is so, parties like UKIP can never be more than talking points whilst things carry on more or less as usual. Interesting phenomena, but transient and ultimately irrelevant. Terrorism is a means, not an end. It's what you do when you can't get what you want out of the political system, perhaps because the system is stacked against you, perhaps because not enough people agree with you.
Terrorism: I agree with your analysis.
s2art said:
It is an excellent site that fairly summarises the arguments and makes good the point that the question "how much from where?" has no single answer, and is a meaningless question in any event. If by any chance you think that site is supporting the UKIP argument for 70% plus (a figure seemingly plucked, possibly by accident but more likely on purpose, from the Euro Parliament mix up alluded to on the site), then you must have a different copy of the internet to the one I've got here. FredClogs said:
...
The irony and hypocrisy of the free marketeer, hard working, "competition drives success" ideals of the majority of Tory and Kipper supporters in contrast to their fear of labour competition never ceases to be shame to have to highlight.
...
There's a lot in that. It is often not about "them" being foreign, brown, or whatever (sadly, it all too often is about that as well) it's about them being competition. True laissez faire free market liberals should welcome open door immigration. I am not one of those so I would opt for door half open. You have to deal with demands on infrastructure, and recent Governments failed to do that, leading to stresses and tensions in some areas (in other areas people complain about migrants but never see any). Cultural dilution will take care of itself, and no culture is set in stone anyway. One of the most laughable things about UKIP is their vision of a sort of eternal 1953. Hell, it wasn't even 1953 when it was 1953!The irony and hypocrisy of the free marketeer, hard working, "competition drives success" ideals of the majority of Tory and Kipper supporters in contrast to their fear of labour competition never ceases to be shame to have to highlight.
...
don4l said:
You should know the answer to that BV.
Quite simply, most of our laws pre-date our accession to the EEC/EU.
Are you being just a teeny, weeny bit disingenuos?
No, and disingenuous is a word that I invite you to refrain from using in this context, as it is just posh people speak for "lying". We are self evidently talking about legislation since the UK joined the EU, not the whole corpus of law since 1189. We are not talking about the common law, although that makes a good point against Farage, as large tracts of the law by which people live is still common law and unaffected by the EU. The average common law Judge deciding the average common law case relatively rarely has to reach for an EU point. By contrast, if you are dealing with stuff like telecoms regulation and competition policy, it's almost 100% EU law, which goes to show that the argument is meaningless when expressed in across the board generalities, but such are the stuff of Nige.Quite simply, most of our laws pre-date our accession to the EEC/EU.
Are you being just a teeny, weeny bit disingenuos?
Guam said:
Breadvan72 said:
What? You mean people politically active in the old Soviet Block nations were (gasp!) Communists? Holmes, you astound me.
An analogy: I am not a fan of Cameron, but I don't think that he's a right winger. When he was at Brasenose, he was an awful right winger, snob, and Bullingdon Hooray. Then he grew up. He changed his opinions and behaviour, and became a moderately statesmanlike Prime Minister somewhere centre right ish. Sometimes, people change. The Lega Nord is still the Lega Nord.
Hahaha yeah if you say so, Marxists always change their views of course An analogy: I am not a fan of Cameron, but I don't think that he's a right winger. When he was at Brasenose, he was an awful right winger, snob, and Bullingdon Hooray. Then he grew up. He changed his opinions and behaviour, and became a moderately statesmanlike Prime Minister somewhere centre right ish. Sometimes, people change. The Lega Nord is still the Lega Nord.
Especially when they cant sell the line to the electorate. Only those on the left are capable of change of course <snigger>.
Dont worry you have given me plenty to work with, as I said earlier thank you for pointing me down this road, it really is something I should have fleshed out earlier.
Breadvan72 said:
s2art said:
Breadvan72 said:
One of the most laughable things about UKIP is their vision of a sort of eternal 1953. Hell, it wasn't even 1953 when it was 1953!
Where do you get that idea from?(2) The serious point is that you can't stop the bus, and - until you finally fall under the wheels - you can't get off it. What you can do is try to give tips to the driver. He may not listen.
WinstonWolf said:
Cleggy lied about the amount of legislation that comes from the EU.
"Oh them's not law's, them's directives". He's kinda like a pirate, but less trustworthy.
I think you are praising him too highly. "Oh them's not law's, them's directives". He's kinda like a pirate, but less trustworthy.
I would place the real life rough guesstimate answer to the entirely meaningless question (basing this on doing some actual lawyering for nearly 30 years) as somewhere between 10 and 20% most of the time, zero per cent for some of the time, and 100% some of the time, which perhaps goes to show that it is a daft question. Has it changed (ie grown) much since the mid 1980s when I first started noticing it? I would say yes, quite a bit, and in many ways far too much, but not so much as to transform things beyond recognition.
Edited by anonymous-user on Wednesday 9th April 17:35
Edited by anonymous-user on Wednesday 9th April 17:36
Guam said:
Wow what are you smoking?
Where did I mention Cameron (that was you), do they allow strange substances in the Inns of court now?
I was referring to the Bulgarian Socialists part of Labours S And D grouping, damn I hope the counsel I am meeting with on Friday has a better attention span than you (or I might be in for an expensive period of time).
Top tip: Try to remember your own stuff. You were so busy hugging yourself and slapping yourself on the back that you forgot your simply hilarious show stopper gag about only leftists changing. It is to that that I was referring. The demands of the syllabus are not high, although I appreciate that for some they will always be a struggle, but try at least to aim for internal consistency. Where did I mention Cameron (that was you), do they allow strange substances in the Inns of court now?
I was referring to the Bulgarian Socialists part of Labours S And D grouping, damn I hope the counsel I am meeting with on Friday has a better attention span than you (or I might be in for an expensive period of time).
s2art said:
Breadvan72 said:
...
(2) The serious point is that you can't stop the bus, and - until you finally fall under the wheels - you can't get off it. What you can do is try to give tips to the driver. He may not listen.
(2) makes no sense. If the bus you are on isnt going to where you want to be, then get off and catch another bus. Or better still, as this is PH, get a car and drive wherever you want to go.(2) The serious point is that you can't stop the bus, and - until you finally fall under the wheels - you can't get off it. What you can do is try to give tips to the driver. He may not listen.
s2art said:
I think you will find that history isnt a bus, and that we, collectively, have influence on the path history takes. There is no historical inevitability about the EU superstate, on the contrary it looks like a good thing to avoid.
I said a bus, not a train. The bus can be steered and does not run on rails. There is no historical inevitability, but the bus doesn't wait, and can't be parked in 1953, never to move forward (unless you want it to be a broken down old bus with badgers living in the engine compartment).Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff